S&P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MugenOne

Guest
The United States lost its top-notch triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poor’s Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world’s largest economy. http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__GOVERNMENT_POLITICS/EVENTS/_DEBT_TALKS/downgrading_us_credit_rating_200.jpg
Michele​
Constantini | PhotoAlto | Getty Images​

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.
U.S. Treasurys, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

cnbc.com/id/44039103

Who takes them seriously? S&P and Moody have their own agenda. Look no farther than their ratings months before the housing crash.
 
IIRC they’re looking for us to cut $4 trillion, or raise the same amount of money in taxes. Sounds like legal extortion to me…
 
Zero Hedge has the text of S&P’s statement. The debt-ceiling deal wasn’t good enough:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade…
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability…
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.
 
IIRC they’re looking for us to cut $4 trillion, or raise the same amount of money in taxes. Sounds like legal extortion to me…
Errr, their job requires that they offer honest and accurate assessments of nations’ and institutions’ creditworthiness. Refusing to reduce budget deficits is hardly an indicator of creditworthiness.

To the extent they haven’t done their job, it’s because they didn’t do this sooner.
 
cnbc.com/id/44039103

Who takes them seriously? S&P and Moody have their own agenda. Look no farther than their ratings months before the housing crash.
Like it or not, the global markets take them seriously.

Among other problems, this is the price we are paying as a country for our current system of entitlements that are dragging us into financial oblivion with no feasible way to ever pay back our national debt.

I don’t know who I am disgusted with more, the Obama Administration and the Pelosi Democrats that passed Obamacare, or the Catholic Democrat voting bloc that votes in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anthema.
 
Zero Hedge has the text of S&P’s statement. The debt-ceiling deal wasn’t good enough:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade…
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability…
When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.
In fairness, they warned us in advance that $400 billion in annual deficit reduction was needed immediately to avoid a downgrade. We offered $270 billion (eventually). We should’ve seen this coming.

Funny thing is, even $400 billion wouldn’t be enough to avoid having the market decide our debt is worthless.

This is bad news all around.
 
Question for people smarter than I…What does this mean to us little people?
 
We don’t need to use Keynesian/ government spending to grow the economy and get out of this debt. Thought John Stossel had a telling article about Canada, and what they did when their credit rating was cut:

Wisdom From Canada. And Ron Paul
foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/15/wisdom-canada-and-ron-paul-0

excerpt:
In my syndicated column this week, I point out that 15 years ago, Canada had just as much debt as we (also 70% of their economy). They also had high unemployment and sluggish growth. Their bond rating was down graded. They tried the opposite of the Keynesian prescription.
In 1995 Canadian leaders cut unemployment benefits and other programs. It happened quietly because it was a liberal government, and liberals didn’t want to criticize their own. The result was that Canada’s debt stopped increasing. As the government ran budget surpluses, the debt went down.
Canada also raised some taxes. But the spending cuts were much bigger, six to one: agriculture was cut 22 percent; fisheries, 27 percent; natural resources, almost 50 percent.
Another good result: since 1997 Canada has the highest growth rate of any of the G-7 countries. And guess who has a lower unemployment rate now - the US or Canada? Read the full column here.
Japan and Canada provide a nice natural experiment about how Keynesian policy works in the real world, and Canada shows us a way out of our debt hole.
 
The past few weeks have demonstrated to the business community and the rest of the world that our country lacks political leadership.

The agencies that rate the risk of default could not keep a triple A rating on our borrowing after we reportedly, came within a day of defaulting.
 
This has really been a long time coming. I’ve said for several years that I didn’t know how the US managed to keep it’s AAA rating.
 
This should be no surprise. The Congress did not reduce government spending.
 
The past few weeks have demonstrated to the business community and the rest of the world that our country lacks political leadership.

The agencies that rate the risk of default could not keep a triple A rating on our borrowing after we reportedly, came within a day of defaulting.
Contrarily I submit the past few weeks show we have too much leadership with non of our princes willing to abandon what doesn’t work for policies that do work. For the establishment republicans and democrats alike it proves all their silly plans are as empty as their suits. Besides we were never in position of defaulting in the near future. The change in bond rating only is a bet of future defaulting.

Funny thing about debt, once you owe somebody a lot of money you are their slave. They get first dibs on part of your life whether you like it or not.
 
The real question is when will investors start to care? So far, the default crisis has not impacted interest rates negatively at all. This rating change does not add any new information. If investors are worried interest rates will go up, if they are not worried, interest rates won’t go up.
 
Question for people smarter than I…What does this mean to us little people?
The immediate impact will probably be pretty negligible – possibly some damage to the stock market (hurting your 401k if you have one) and maybe heightened interest rates.

The real impact will in the medium- to longer-term. This will increase borrowing costs and thus the deficit, which could lead to further downgrades. The fact that Congress cannot repudiate the debt Constitutionally means this could very well become a Constitutional crisis eventually.
 
That didn’t take long. Less than a week after “averting disaster” with a supposed default saving budget deal, we now have instead a whopper of an inflation ahead of us. Of course, that will be prime excuse for the Democrats to rally around higher taxes. (even though they will be going way up when the Bush tax cuts expire next year).
There is enough lag time that interest rates will only start climbing in 2012.

Financial talk show host Dave Ramsey put it well:
“If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand.” - Dave Ramsey
How would you rate the creditworthiness of the household example shown above?
 
Funny thing about debt, once you owe somebody a lot of money you are their slave. They get first dibs on part of your life whether you like it or not.
Actually, that’s false. When it comes to a company, the first people that get money if it goes bankrupt are the shareholders. The bondholders (debtholders) are actually last in line. Government tax comes before bonds.

For people and government though, they don’t have anything in the hierarchy above bonds (debt), so it does come first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top